Skip to main content

England... MI6... so old-fashioned!


Skyfall
(2012)

There is much to enjoy in Sam Mendes’ 50th anniversary Bond film, but it’s some way off being the pinnacle of the series suggested in some quarters. There’s a feeling at times that it’s trying too hard to be a spot-the-reference anniversary movie in the same way Die Another Day was, only with the benefit of a better director and one foot in the realism of previous Craig outings.


The attempts to do the more trad-Bond thing, notably with the reintroduction of iconic characters, a larger than life crippled villain (commendably unseen until at least the midpoint of the film) and liberal doses of humour, have mixed results. Pretty much every jokey line Craig delivers falls flat, and it would have been better not to try to remould him as a catch-all for the various personas of Bond throughout the years. There is a tangible déjà vu in having a beaten up, ageing character who has gone off the map (see Brosnan in his last two outings; as an aside is age the excuse for why Craig runs so oddly, as if has a couple of bags of walnuts straining to escape from his pants? Or, perhaps that is actually the reason) and I felt I’d seen it all before with the M plotline (she makes hard choices you know, but don’t we all just love her for it).


The attempts to overtly stress the relevance of the field agent in the current age have been going on since Goldeneye, and this is reinforced by establishing the main tool of the villain as cyber-terrorism, an altogether passé plot device (Live Free and Die Hard, for example). Even the graphics used by Silva when he hacks MI6 computers were the sort of thing you’d expect 10 or more ago years. And so it continues; Q is a computer whizz played by Ben Wishaw doing his best Matt Smith impression. Wishaw has a distinctive screen presence, and there’s a strong rapport between him and Craig, but the dialogue between them is laboured, trying hard to be witty and falling flat. By straining to be up-to-date, the writers only show how behind-the-times and middle-aged they are.


As with Wishaw, many of the problems with the script are masked, or at least diluted, by strong casting choices on Mendes' part. Naomi Harris is so winning that you question why she doesn’t remain a field agent, and then realise that it’s because this is about moving the pieces into a certain position rather than following through with the characters. Ralph Fiennes’ Mallory steals every scene he’s in, and makes you think he’d have been a great choice as Bond 15 years ago. Rory Kinnear is also note-perfect as Tanner. 



As for Javier Bardem, he’s a lot of fun and has a couple of solid speeches, although (a symptom of the bloated running time) the writers run out of interesting things to do with him once his plan is revealed (the nature of which is unfortunately very reminiscent of this year’s Avengers).


Judi Dench has been given progressively bigger chunks of storyline since she took on M duties, disproportionate to the importance of her character and reflective purely of having Oscar-winning Actress Judi Dench dribbling prestige all over a blockbuster franchise. She has such prestige she can say, “Fuck” in a Bond film and not cause a fuss! There’s little place for her character to go other than being the (self-) righteous ballbuster, so the series has fallen into a pattern (since The World Is Not Enough) of putting her in peril and then requiring Bond to rescue her, a pensionable damsel in distress (Quantum of Solace went to the lengths of having her show up on location just to harangue him with the usual circular badinage; you’ve got Dench, so maximum screen time means maximum quality Bond). Skyfall goes one step further, such that the entire plot revolves around M; she is now more important than world domination to Bond’s uber-villains. She’s officially become what Bond is all about, such that our stiff upper-lipped (or stubbled-lip in Craig’s case, the sloppy bugger) spy becomes all moist-eyed in her presence. Remember the halcyon days of Bernard Lee?


Compared to Quantum of Solace the action is fantastic, but it doesn’t get anywhere near to Casino Royale for edge of the seat thrills and viscerality (in general, the film can’t compete with Craig’s first). Mendes is clearly more comfortable with one-on-one action beats than vehicles and machines crunching into one another. Generally the spatial geography in these sequences is coherent, which is not only a blessing but essential after the last outing's incoherent shakycam. I particularly enjoyed the William Tell-esque scene with antique pistols, Silva’s assassination attempt on M and the delightfully arty Hong Kong fight shot in silhouette. In contrast, a sequence where Bond pursues Silva reaches its climax with 007 experiencing an onslaught of special effects. In order for this to happen he has to decide not to take a clear shot, listen to Silva tell him how he’s not yet beaten, and then not move while said special effect careers towards him. Perhaps the excuse is he’s getting old.


While I don’t wish to labour the point, the vulnerable action man was done before with (in particular) The World is Not Enough, and it was no more compelling a character beat first time around. In that instance, it whiffed of star power attempting to surgically implant depth on a one-note persona that previously held such notions in contempt (his marriage excepted). Here, it translates as just another example of a film series lacking in self-confidence looking nervously over its shoulder. See how that Dark Knight introduces realism into the superhero genre with Bruce Wayne's progressively more deleterious scars and ailments? Bond can have some of that! Mostly it’s just window dressing. Occasionally it gets in the way of the story. No one wants to see a Bond who can’t shoot straight. The broader concern is that, 17 years on from Goldeneye, there’s still unease about how best to present this icon. Which results in artificial elements being grafted on. The series had prior form for this (Live and Let Die, Moonraker) but it was invariably in the surrounding tissue of the story, rather than assaulting Bond himself.



A slight digression, but I wondered whether the prominent Heineken product placement was serving its intended purpose. Bond only drinks it when he's slumming it and has given up the "good" fight. Possibly it's not on a Blue Velvet level of negative associations, but neither does it translate as a ringing endorsement (certainly not $45 million-worth of ringing endorsement).


Roger Deakins’ cinematography is sumptuous throughout, although the Hong Kong sequence is definitely the stand-out. Likewise, Thomas Newman’s score is by turns inventive and traditional in all the right places. It’s both lush and muscular, and I’m quite willing to admit I didn’t have high expectations given the lack of action movies (or even thrillers) in his back catalogue.


The climax in the Highlands is a set piece too far, particularly with the MacGyver preparations Bond makes for his showdown, and the cornball character that poor Albert Finney is subjected to (I’m sure he was well-paid, however). It’s a tribute to Mendes work that the seams aren’t too gaping until you reflect on them, but there are a number of occasions where the relentless self-referencing of the history of the franchise runs the risk of the film Jumping the (CGI Komodo) Dragon.


Post-Quantum of Solace’s disappointment, I was in favour of the reintroduction of more trad-Bond elements but now, with all the pieces lined up for the next outing, I’m unconvinced it was the right move for Craig. He doesn’t have the lightness of touch to work in the more playful arena of “bells and whistles” Bond, and on the occasions when Skyfall attempts it, there’s a sense that the film is pulling in opposite directions. A scene of bitchy banter between Bond and M over how uncomfortable his Aston Martin is strains so hard to be humorous that you can’t wait to get back to some shooting. Roger Moore wouldn’t have needed to utter a line to make it work, and it’s an example of the makers of the series needing to recognise that Bond has different limitations in different incarnations.  


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Must the duck be here?

The Favourite (2018)
(SPOILERS) In my review of The Killing of a Sacred Deer, I suggested The Favourite might be a Yorgos Lanthimos movie for those who don’t like Yorgos Lanthimos movies. At least, that’s what I’d heard. And certainly, it’s more accessible than either of his previous pictures, the first two thirds resembling a kind of Carry On Up the Greenaway, but despite these broader, more slapstick elements and abundant caustic humour, there’s a prevailing detachment on the part of the director, a distancing oversight that rather suggests he doesn’t feel very much for his subjects, no matter how much they emote, suffer or connive. Or pratfall.

Whoever comes, I'll kill them. I'll kill them all.

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) There’s no guessing he’s back. John Wick’s return is most definite and demonstrable, in a sequel that does what sequels ought in all the right ways, upping the ante while never losing sight of the ingredients that made the original so formidable. John Wick: Chapter 2 finds the minimalist, stripped-back vehicle and character of the first instalment furnished with an elaborate colour palette and even more idiosyncrasies around the fringes, rather like Mad Max in that sense, and director Chad Stahleski (this time without the collaboration of David Leitch, but to no discernible deficit) ensures the action is filled to overflowing, but with an even stronger narrative drive that makes the most of changes of gear, scenery and motivation.

The result is a giddily hilarious, edge-of-the-seat thrill ride (don’t believe The New York Times review: it is not “altogether more solemn” I can only guess Jeannette Catsoulis didn’t revisit the original in the interven…

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

I don’t know if what is happening is fair, but it’s the only thing I can think of that’s close to justice.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)
(SPOILERS) I think I knew I wasn’t going to like The Killing of a Sacred Deer in the first five minutes. And that was without the unedifying sight of open-heart surgery that takes up the first four. Yorgos Lanthimos is something of a Marmite director, and my responses to this and his previous The Lobster (which I merely thought was “okay” after exhausting its thin premise) haven’t induced me to check out his earlier work. Of course, he has now come out with a film that, reputedly, even his naysayers will like, awards-darling The Favourite

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …